Well, thank you very much.
Its purpose is to be an exhaustive list for coordination, theme, flow and coherence. If they don't write up every single idea listed in this helpful and guiding "Article Inspiration" directory with a dedicated/comprehensive topic in response, it doesn't break.
Everybody is always helpful at shouting random topics that someone else has to write, so I have no doubt you will get lots and lots and lots of topics.
With so many topics however, my fear is that the mountain will be so large that nobody wants to work on it.
They can choose how to simplify, merge topics and keep it short as they develop the foundation and introductory pieces. How many words do you think it takes to make a simple introduction to state machines? To elaborate this mode, for example, don't you think its worth while to have a paragraph or two describing basic color theory so that more advanced related articles can link backwards for readers who need clarification? Isn't it a good idea to give a theme and at least somewhat consistent progression between concepts, even if they're only included as minor == sections == that are part of greater articles?
Definitely, but hasn't this been done a zillion times before by slightly less than a zillion people?
As such, wouldn't it make sense to improve and extend the existing work instead of starting from scratch again
? It would give you a jump start. Sure it may not be completely consistent, but isn't making it more consistent less work than rewriting it all again?
We're not trying to index information. We're trying to conceptually connect it.
"Bundle" can have many meanings. Just linking is one extreme, rewriting the same basic stuff yet another time is another extreme. In my view, the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle, where you can make good use of work already done, and build further upon it.
Try to find your way through 200 books.
That works pretty well for me, due to the fact that every book states its own assumptions and definitions if you want to know precisely. I think that's the best you can hope for. When you go in the deep end and explain things carefully and precisely, you need very precise and subtly different notions to explain differences. These are often unique for each method or approach. As a result, when you explain several methods, you get overlapping notions with subtle differences in meaning and intention. While I agree it is not something you should aim for, I also see no way to eliminate all of them without sacrificing preciseness of explanation.
I am quite sure that these 199 authors all carefully considered their terminolgy in relation with other existing work. The fact that despite they knowing existing work, they choose to have new or different concepts in their book because they thought it serves their audience better.
Is there any reason to believe this is different at a wiki with even more authors writing texts over a longer period of time?
I do wish you good luck with it; it would be great to have a really good set of explanations about game programming. My only problem is that I haven't seen that one golden ingredient which will make it work where all previous attempts have failed.
My project: Messing about in FreeRCT
, dev blog
, and IRC #freerct at oftc.net